The Addendum draws on two additional pieces of evidence to revise the calculations of bank angle and wing loading which would be required if the plane followed the curved path north of the Citgo service station. This strengthens the previous conclusions set out in the original paper. Previously the failure of the many witnesses to mention a steep bank was taken as proof that the curved path did not happen, while the survival of the aircraft, if it deviated round the service station, was regarded as unlikely. With this new analysis of the witness testimony, showing the plane was flying wings level near the Naval Annex, survival of the plane is now found to be absolutely impossible. There is thus no rational explanation of the event other than that the plane flew virtually straight past the Naval Annex and the service station to the impact point.

Like Richard Gage, I too was impressed by CIT's assemblage of witnesses asserting an approach path of Flight 77 at odds with the official version, and said so. I have never believed that the 757 flew over the Pentagon, and have never stated that I did.

In the light of what Gage has learned about CIT's methods, I wish, like him, to withdraw my original endorsement of the CIT video.

There is a response given by those who support the official theory of the events of 9/11 which is hard to answer. It is "I am not a scientist and cannot understand the arguments". The intention of this paper is to appeal to people who are familiar with philosophical debate but not comfortable with science and the scientific method. The paper starts off with a rather wordy study of the way we interpret information and give it weight or reject it. I think this might gently lead some readers, normally resistant to concise scientific papers, to look at, and understand, the scientific analysis which follows.

It is probably also worth mentioning that the paper starts with a reference to Milgram, whose experiments showed how remarkably prone we are to obeying authority even when the act appears inhumane. This may remind us that there are answers to that other common difficult response: "They couldn't have done it!".

In this version an additional photograph of debris has been included, wing loading on the spiral descent of flight AA77 has been calculated and the description of the position of CIT has been enlarged. Version 5 included a table showing that a range of flight paths exist which would enable a Boeing 757 to hit the light poles and the Pentagon without experiencing excessive g-force. As some researchers have stated that this is impossible the issue of misinformation arises and is examined in a postscript. The calculations involved are explained in the attached spreadsheet.

Calculation errors in the previous version have been corrected. Version 5 included a table showing that a range of flight paths exist which would enable a Boeing 757 to hit the light poles and the Pentagon without experiencing excessive g-force. As some researchers have stated that this is impossible the issue of misinformation arises and is examined.

Version 5 has considerable revision from page 8 on, and a few minor edits earlier. The main addition is a table showing that there is a range of flight paths which would enable the plane to hit the light poles and the Pentagon, without excessive g-force being encountered.

Already I have found errors in version 5 so there will be a version 6. The errors are in the table of flight paths going over the Navy Annex. The argument remains unchanged however. The paths going over and to the south of the VDOT antenna I still believe are correct.

If anyone can give me the height of the Navy Annex roof above sea level I would appreciate it.

Some comments have already appeared on the previous thread. It would be best if future comments were placed in this, the curent thread.

Numerous criticisms have been received of "What Hit the Pentagon?". Some pointed to errors, some were unfounded. The new version, version 4, has now been placed at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. I have attempted to correct errors and have added a preface to help explain the purpose of the paper.

If this proves to provoke further criticism, a version 5 may well be produced, as I regard this issue as extremely important. The fact that explosives were used at the WTC is now widely accepted by the truth movement, as the science is now well understood. In the case of the Pentagon attack, however, there is a lack of cohesion in the movement because widely differing views are held. This damages our credibility. The paper provides a study of evidence to show what can, and more importantly, what cannot, be scientifically proved. It makes the case for avoiding asserting to the public what cannot be proved. It is important to avoid action which will impede progress toward a new investigation, with the hope of prosecution of those responsible for 9/11.